Instigator / Con
0
1488
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#3877
Socialism
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Now I suppose a general description of the rules.
Rules:
(1.) BOTH sides have a burden to prove their positions. (I have noticed this kind of burden swinging in far too many debates. It is a tactic to merely win a debate, not to find truth.)
(2.) Sources are NOT everything. (Something also misunderstood is the nature of facts. Facts are NOT automatic guarantees that what you say is true. Facts can be: 1. Wrong 2. Misinterpreted 3. Misapplied or irrelevant to your argument. Lastly you can have a fallacious argument, which is one consisting of logical fallacies, such as contradictions that are unable to be defended by mere facts)
(3.) Basic etiquette. (No character/ad hominum attacks, no topic critiques...etc)
In this debate I will be against Socialism. To clarify what Socialism is, I offer the following definition which I will include in my first post:
Socialism: “Political and economic theory advocating state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” -Oxford English Dictionary
Weighing Mechanism: Individual vs Collective
Voters should weigh the arguments based on support for a more collectivized (for socialism) or Individualistic (against socialism) type of governance in a state.
Clarification of the burdens:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For side Pro (For Socialism): To support (build evidence on) and defend Socialism.
For side Con (Against Socialism): To support (build evidence on) and defend against Socialism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will have five rounds and 2 days each to post.
To Truth!
-logicae
Round 1
Con
#1
My fellow debaters and thinkers, who said this?
“I am a socialist,and a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend Reventlow.”
It was a rising German politician named Adolf Hitler. Our understanding of Socialism’s dark historical past has often been clouded by wartime propaganda and modern political narratives. I want to put socialism on trial for the evils it has caused, ideologically and in practice in the real world.
Contention 1 Socialism is anti-social
The use of the word “social” in Socialism is disingenuous because it aims to sneak in the preconceived notion that we are all involved and have a say in its construction and implementation. But Socialism, despite euphemism in name, is far from social.
a. The definition of Socialism by the Oxford English Dictionary is the
“Political and economic theory advocating state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.”(6)
b. The two types of state. Most socialists do not argue the first definition in principle, but rather they argue the meaning of the word “state.”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the state as
“a political community under one government.”(6)
The state in turn is two particular things. It is, firstly, the community (often called “the people” or citizens of society) and secondly it contains the governing class of the community. Both are part of the state, but, importantly, only one is directly involved with centralized directives for the whole of the state. Socialists generally claim that in Socialism “the people” part of the state are the ones making decisions for the state, this however is impossible. To understand why you have to know:
The fallacy of democracy
We must ask ourselves what “the people” means when speaking of state action. Democracy is an illusion because it assumes that everyone will agree on any one thing when we all well know that people disagree on pretty much everything. The best thing a democracy could hope for is majority rule, but even this is farcical in practice. Given a majority democracy, the question of enforcement on the minority becomes the issue. The sensible thing to do is to create law enforcers (sort of like our police) to force the noncompliant to follow the mandates of the majority. Such a body of law enforcers will have to be massive and capable of handling just under half of the population. This “executive” or enforcing body will have serious power. Unfortunately we must consider the free will of these enforcers. In the most severe of scenarios they can rebel and join the minority to overrule the majority with ease, but even in small matters such a body may disagree with the majority and cherry pick or refuse to enforce their laws. They may even choose to enforce their own unofficial mandates. What we have inevitable created with these enforcers, is a ruling class or hierarchy with real deciding power over the rest of the "democratic" society, a government if you will. Thus we, though not intending it, have witnessed the destruction of democracy by its own hand.
Impacts:
1. The power of the State is the governing body. There is no such thing as “democratic” rule and so there must be some head of the state, the government, with the deciding and enforcing power on the rest of the state.
2. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. It follows that the governing body of the state handles and mandates the means of production.
3. The people are not the government. It goes without saying that the people, disconnected from the ruling class by means of enforcing power (military/police), can only accept its decisions.
Contention 2 Socialism’s defining ethic is compulsion.
Because socialism pushes government control of all facets of society including private property, the means to work and provide a living, and trade, it necessarily relies on force to achieve its aims. There is no doubt that a government cannot function without some use of force, but socialism uniquely harnesses this power to answer every problem of the state. The free market state in contrast, respects the individual, that he knows best how to live his life and postulates that government regulation should always be second to individual liberty.
Impacts:
1. The Abolition of Man
The philosopher Socrates exclaimed, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates wished us to understand Human Nature and our place within it so that we may live effective and fulfilled lives. Socialism prevents this because it calls for the government control over the workings of society, effectively living your life for you. Therefore the essential principle of free will in Human Nature is abolished by Socialism and, man too, with it.
2. The Horrors of Socialism
There are many branches and variations of socialism that share the central theme of dominating state government including the likes of Fascism, Communism,and National Socialism. For the sake of brevity, I will not go down the rabbit hole of explaining the history of each, rather every round I will cover a popular example.
Example 1: Crimes of Hitler’s National Socialism
Reichstag Fire Decree and elimination of Individual Rights
The first of many motions by the National Socialist’s was to get rid of individual rights. They did this by eliminating constitutional protections in the German constitution.
"Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." (Reich President, Hindenburg, the Reich Chancellor, Hitler, the Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, and the Reich- Minister of Justice, Guertner) (2)
This was known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, which,
“permitted the regime to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and to suppress publications. It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments. The decree was a key step in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. Germany became a police state in which citizens enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights and the SS, the elite guard of the Nazi state, wielded increasing authority through its control over the police.” (3)
Crippling Economy
Under National Socialism, German socialists in their bid to revitalize the German economy after the Great Depression plunged Germany into debt.
“The regime’s policy of borrowing against future prosperity seemed to be literally paying off. Nazi propaganda trumpeted what it called a German financial miracle. Yet with additional expenditures exceeding additional revenues by almost 300 percent, public debt increased in the first two years of the Nazi regime by 10.3 billion Reichsmarks.” (1, pg 37-39)
Annual spending soon reached 36.8 billion reichsmarks by 1939 with state revenues bringing in less than half that amount. To make matters worse, interest payments on the debt robbed 3.3 billion reichsmarks from the already dried out coffers.
Such a financial situation is untenable and something had to be done to alleviate the debts. Indeed, the situation was so dire that in January 1939, the directors of the Reichsbank wrote to Hitler,
“The unlimited expansion of state expenditures flouts every attempt to draw up an orderly budget. It has brought state finances, despite the drastic tightening of tax legislation, to the brink of collapse and threatens now to destabilize both the national bank and the currency. No financial recipes or systems-no matter how ingenious or well thought out- and no institutions or set of fiscal mechanisms can suffice to rein in the disastrous consequences of unbridled deficit spending on the currency. No national bank is capable of propping up the currency against the inflationary policies of the state.” (1, pg 37-39)
Hitler’s Solution to Debt Crisis: Holocaust and War
“Hitler bridged what he and his leadership knew to be a precarious financial situation with military adventures that had terrible consequences for millions of people. Dispossession, deportation, and mass murder became major sources of state income.” (1, pg 37-39)
The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Aryan Germans were "racially superior." They wanted to create a “racially pure” state. These views helped justify the exploitation of the Jews and conquered peoples to support the failing German economy.
“The percentage of Germany’s wartime revenues derived from external sources-that is, revenues from occupied countries, forced labor, and persecuted Jews- is about 70 percent.” (1, pg 327)
The results of this economic exploitation were the deaths of 200,000 “undesirables,” 6 million Jews, 7 million soviet citizens, 1.8 million non-Jewish Poles, and countless others beaten and starved in other territories.
In the end it is clear that Socialism's blatant disrespect of the individual is beyond repair as evidenced by its abolition of free will and the crimes committed against the people it governs.
To Truth!
-logicae
Sources:
(1) Hitler's Beneficiaries, Götz Aly.https://archive.org/details/hitlersbeneficia00alyg/page/39/mode/2up
(2) Hitler’s Decree https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DOCNAC9.htm
(3) Reichstag Fire Decree https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1933-1938/reichstag-fire-decree
(4) (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 200,000) https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-murder-of-people-with-disabilities
(5) (Citizens killed by Germans) https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution
(6) Definitions (Oxford English Dictionary version 2008)
Pro
#2
Today, I’ll be arguing in favor of Socialism. My goal is to retort misconceptions and statements that might be made against it.
“My fellow debaters and thinkers, who said this?“I am a socialist,and a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend Reventlow.”It was a rising German politician named Adolf Hitler. Our understanding of Socialism’s dark historical past has often been clouded by wartime propaganda and modern political narratives. I want to put socialism on trial for the evils it has caused, ideologically and in practice in the real world.”
This argument is more common than you think, the implication being the obvious association between Nazism and Socialism. The problem with this context?
It’s false.
Hitler and The Nazi party were not socialists, despite rumors suggesting otherwise. And I’ll return to this point later.
“Contention 1 Socialism is anti-socialThe use of the word “social” in Socialism is disingenuous because it aims to sneak in the preconceived notion that we are all involved and have a say in its construction and implementation. But Socialism, despite euphemism in name, is far from social.”
This brings me to my next point. Here is a word you probably heard before.:
- Social Darwinism - The idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better.
Social Darwinism was a sociological theory that embraced the idea of “Survival of The Fittest” in society, allowing only wealthy people to triumph while completely disregarding those at the bottom of the hierarchy. This theory was used to enable rich industrialists taking advantage of poor people and even justify racism.
Socialism is the antithesis to Social Darwinism. Socialism is based on the idea that cooperation is more effective for long-term survival and balance than competition. In an ideal socialist world, everyone has value.
No more needs to be said.
“a. The definition of Socialism by the Oxford English Dictionary is the“Political and economic theory advocating state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.”(6)b. The two types of state. Most socialists do not argue the first definition in principle, but rather they argue the meaning of the word “state.”The Oxford English Dictionary defines the state as“a political community under one government.”(6)The state in turn is two particular things. It is, firstly, the community (often called “the people” or citizens of society) and secondly it contains the governing class of the community. Both are part of the state, but, importantly, only one is directly involved with centralized directives for the whole of the state. Socialists generally claim that in Socialism “the people” part of the state are the ones making decisions for the state, this however is impossible. To understand why you have to know:The fallacy of democracyWe must ask ourselves what “the people” means when speaking of state action. Democracy is an illusion because it assumes that everyone will agree on any one thing when we all well know that people disagree on pretty much everything. The best thing a democracy could hope for is majority rule, but even this is farcical in practice. Given a majority democracy, the question of enforcement on the minority becomes the issue. The sensible thing to do is to create law enforcers (sort of like our police) to force the noncompliant to follow the mandates of the majority. Such a body of law enforcers will have to be massive and capable of handling just under half of the population. This “executive” or enforcing body will have serious power. Unfortunately we must consider the free will of these enforcers. In the most severe of scenarios they can rebel and join the minority to overrule the majority with ease, but even in small matters such a body may disagree with the majority and cherry pick or refuse to enforce their laws. They may even choose to enforce their own unofficial mandates. What we have inevitable created with these enforcers, is a ruling class or hierarchy with real deciding power over the rest of the "democratic" society, a government if you will. Thus we, though not intending it, have witnessed the destruction of democracy by its own hand.Impacts:1. The power of the State is the governing body. There is no such thing as “democratic” rule and so there must be some head of the state, the government, with the deciding and enforcing power on the rest of the state.2. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. It follows that the governing body of the state handles and mandates the means of production.3. The people are not the government. It goes without saying that the people, disconnected from the ruling class by means of enforcing power (military/police), can only accept its decisions.Contention 2 Socialism’s defining ethic is compulsion.Because socialism pushes government control of all facets of society including private property, the means to work and provide a living, and trade, it necessarily relies on force to achieve its aims. There is no doubt that a government cannot function without some use of force, but socialism uniquely harnesses this power to answer every problem of the state. The free market state in contrast, respects the individual, that he knows best how to live his life and postulates that government regulation should always be second to individual liberty.”
- The semantics of the term ‘Socialism’ or ‘State’ can get confusing or mistranslated, as there are different definitions and different versions of the system. There is no one universal definition that can explain it.
- There is no reason that disputes or conflict cannot be resolved diplomatically through an established system without the need to resort to revolutionary violence.
I would instead argue that Socialism reduces violent crime.
A lot of violent crime is perpetrated by existing factors such as poverty and being born into a lower class. Neither of the latter two would exist in a socialist nation, so the rates of robberies, thefts, and mob violence would decrease dramatically.
“Contention 2 Socialism’s defining ethic is compulsion.Because socialism pushes government control of all facets of society including private property, the means to work and provide a living, and trade, it necessarily relies on force to achieve its aims. There is no doubt that a government cannot function without some use of force, but socialism uniquely harnesses this power to answer every problem of the state. The free market state in contrast, respects the individual, that he knows best how to live his life and postulates that government regulation should always be second to individual liberty.Impacts:1. The Abolition of ManThe philosopher Socrates exclaimed, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates wished us to understand Human Nature and our place within it so that we may live effective and fulfilled lives. Socialism prevents this because it calls for the government control over the workings of society, effectively living your life for you. Therefore the essential principle of free will in Human Nature is abolished by Socialism and, man too, with it.2. The Horrors of SocialismThere are many branches and variations of socialism that share the central theme of dominating state government including the likes of Fascism, Communism,and National Socialism. For the sake of brevity, I will not go down the rabbit hole of explaining the history of each, rather every round I will cover a popular example.Example 1: Crimes of Hitler’s National SocialismReichstag Fire Decree and elimination of Individual RightsThe first of many motions by the National Socialist’s was to get rid of individual rights. They did this by eliminating constitutional protections in the German constitution."Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." (Reich President, Hindenburg, the Reich Chancellor, Hitler, the Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, and the Reich- Minister of Justice, Guertner) (2)This was known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, which,“permitted the regime to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and to suppress publications. It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments. The decree was a key step in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. Germany became a police state in which citizens enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights and the SS, the elite guard of the Nazi state, wielded increasing authority through its control over the police.” (3)Crippling EconomyUnder National Socialism, German socialists in their bid to revitalize the German economy after the Great Depression plunged Germany into debt.“The regime’s policy of borrowing against future prosperity seemed to be literally paying off. Nazi propaganda trumpeted what it called a German financial miracle. Yet with additional expenditures exceeding additional revenues by almost 300 percent, public debt increased in the first two years of the Nazi regime by 10.3 billion Reichsmarks.” (1, pg 37-39)Annual spending soon reached 36.8 billion reichsmarks by 1939 with state revenues bringing in less than half that amount. To make matters worse, interest payments on the debt robbed 3.3 billion reichsmarks from the already dried out coffers.Such a financial situation is untenable and something had to be done to alleviate the debts. Indeed, the situation was so dire that in January 1939, the directors of the Reichsbank wrote to Hitler,“The unlimited expansion of state expenditures flouts every attempt to draw up an orderly budget. It has brought state finances, despite the drastic tightening of tax legislation, to the brink of collapse and threatens now to destabilize both the national bank and the currency. No financial recipes or systems-no matter how ingenious or well thought out- and no institutions or set of fiscal mechanisms can suffice to rein in the disastrous consequences of unbridled deficit spending on the currency. No national bank is capable of propping up the currency against the inflationary policies of the state.” (1, pg 37-39)Hitler’s Solution to Debt Crisis: Holocaust and War“Hitler bridged what he and his leadership knew to be a precarious financial situation with military adventures that had terrible consequences for millions of people. Dispossession, deportation, and mass murder became major sources of state income.” (1, pg 37-39)The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Aryan Germans were "racially superior." They wanted to create a “racially pure” state. These views helped justify the exploitation of the Jews and conquered peoples to support the failing German economy.“The percentage of Germany’s wartime revenues derived from external sources-that is, revenues from occupied countries, forced labor, and persecuted Jews- is about 70 percent.” (1, pg 327)The results of this economic exploitation were the deaths of 200,000 “undesirables,” 6 million Jews, 7 million soviet citizens, 1.8 million non-Jewish Poles, and countless others beaten and starved in other territories.In the end it is clear that Socialism's blatant disrespect of the individual is beyond repair as evidenced by its abolition of free will and the crimes committed against the people it governs.”
Earlier, I pointed out that the Nazis were not socialists, so the time has come for me to elaborate.
But first, you need to understand that Adolf Hitler was a parasitic megalomaniac pandering to whatever trend was popular at the time. (e.g Socialism.) There is no reason not to think he wouldn’t have exploited anything he could use to rise to power.
Socialism. Did. Not. Create. Hitler.
He was already a monster, even without it. To advance his own agenda, he relied mainly on his silver tongue to spread propaganda. When he initially founded the Nazi Party, it is true that he would rely on the Strasser brothers to influence image by associating his harmful politics with Socialism.
Sometime in the 1920’s, Hitler was already seeking clout by gaining the approval of businessman that were actively anti-Socialist. This is largely how the anti-capitalist organization, Black Front, was established. The head Ostro Strasser did this after he immediately learned of Hitler’s treachery and that he was a fake socialist.
The “Nazi-Socialist” argument is a bogus claim that is deliberately misleading, intending to trick politically illiterate people who are gullible enough to believe anything without fact-checking. It is dishonest rhetoric specifically designed to coax your fears, so you’re more willing to resist socialist politicians.
Round 2
Con
#3
Thanks Sir.Lancelot,
Pro brings one argument in favor of Socialism when he says:
Socialism is the antithesis to Social Darwinism. Socialism is based on the idea that cooperation is more effective for long-term survival and balance than competition. In an ideal socialist world, everyone has value.
Socialism is Free Cooperation?
Is Socialism merely the idea that cooperation is good for society? If that was the case, then, unfortunately for Pro, both capitalists and Socialist would be in strict agreement on economic values since both would be calling for individual cooperation. This is really the doctrine of the Free Market, so I think if Pro is serious about his support of it, then he should join me in supporting the cause against increasing state control.
I think Socialism is its own word, however, and does not share the same definition. Notice that Pro does not directly refute the definition I gave by the Oxford Dictionary, rather he only points out that it is "confusing" when compared to different definitions.
The semantics of the term ‘Socialism’ or ‘State’ can get confusing or mistranslated, as there are different definitions and different versions of the system. There is no one universal definition that can explain it. -Pro
The Abolition of Debate
If Pro is right about Socialism falling under no one definition, then our debate should be over with, as we cannot debate a thing which is undefined. This also invalidates Pro's later claim that Socialism is cooperation, given in his words, "There is no one universal definition that can explain it." The unfortunate result of saying that there is no definition that can explain Socialism is that you end the ability to debate it outright.
The Definition of Socialism
Despite Pro's insistence, all words and terms have unique definitions, including Socialism. What makes Socialism unique to Capitalism and the Free Market is that it rejects the free cooperation of the people it calls "greedy bourgeoisie" and in response to claimed abuse of their freedoms, disparities between rich and poor, it calls for government to interfere. This interference is what my definition refers to:
Socialism "Political and economic theory advocating state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” (1)
Most definitions agree on this principle, that government needs to be involved to equalize the people.
Here are some mainstream ones found on the internet in order of popularity:
Socialism "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" (Merriam Webster, 2)
"Socialism is a left-wing[1] economic philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic systems characterized by the dominance of social ownership[2] of the means of production[3][4] as opposed to private ownership." (Wikipedia, 3)
"Socialism is a social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."(Britannica, 4)
Notice that each call for a change of the status quo in the removal of "the means of production" from the individual. This definition I clarified in first round is quite clear.
Socialism reduces violent crime?
Pro argues later that Socialism offers the benefit of reducing violent crime:
A lot of violent crime is perpetrated by existing factors such as poverty and being born into a lower class. Neither of the latter two would exist in a socialist nation, so the rates of robberies, thefts, and mob violence would decrease dramatically. -Pro
I agree that poverty is a breeding ground for crime, however, Pro makes a couple of assumptions from this.
Assumption 1: Socialism reduces poverty? While I will tend to agree Socialism brings most people to equal levels, aside from rich governors, I would only clarify that it makes those people equally poor. Pro needs to show how Socialism raises the wealth of society rather than its taking from it and making an equal class of poor people.
Assumption 2: Poverty is the Main Cause of Crime? In the second sentence Pro claims that if Socialism eliminates this poverty, then the problems of violent crime would dramatically fall. This also needs explanation because, as Pro mentions, poverty is only one of many factors that induce crime.
Impact: Socialism is a Dog without Teeth
Pro claims that Socialism will solve poverty and crime, but offers little to support this.
The real issue of Socialism is that it kills the life of the individual citizen, which, being the building block of society, would in turn kill the society.
Socialism. Did. Not. Create. Hitler?
I actually agree with this statement, but Pro means to convey that Hitler was not a Socialist.
He argues as follows:
1. Hitler was a social darwinist and so is the antithesis to Socialism
2. Hitler was an evil business man early on and later called himself Socialist for his own gain
My response is this:
National Socialism not Hitler
While I would tend to agree that Hitler changed himself for political gain, it says nothing of National Socialism and its actions in Germany. Hitler in this context is merely a distraction from the fruit of the regime.
Socialism in Germany
Let's take a step back from Hitler and review his policies in Germany. You will remember in round 1 that the National Socialists abolished private property and individual rights as part of the Reichstag Fire Decree. Furthermore, National Socialism became the prevailing driver of the German economy, not only controlling formerly private industry, but also driving the nation into debt, causing a literal war for financial survival.
The Fruit is Socialism
By the definition of socialism, Germany was a classic example of state control of the means of production and exchange. If we were talking about a free market Germany, then Hitler would not be anyone of note, as free individuals or "greedy Capitalists' would have run the economy instead of the National Socialists.
In the end, the Abolition of Man remains. Socialist continues is breakdown of society.
To Truth!
-logicae
(1) Oxford English Dictionary
Pro
#4
- “Socialism is Free Cooperation?
-
- Is Socialism merely the idea that cooperation is good for society? If that was the case, then, unfortunately for Pro, both capitalists and Socialist would be in strict agreement on economic values since both would be calling for individual cooperation. This is really the doctrine of the Free Market, so I think if Pro is serious about his support of it, then he should join me in supporting the cause against increasing state control.”
Unfortunately, Capitalism only serves to benefit the higher classes of society. Specifically, the wealthy elite. What this statement would have you believe is that Capitalism and Socialism share the same goal, the only contrast being the tactical difference for achieving it.
Consequently, the lack of state interference is what enables this abusive, neglectful treatment of the poor by the rich and wealthy.
- “I think Socialism is its own word, however, and does not share the same definition. Notice that Pro does not directly refute the definition I gave by the Oxford Dictionary, rather he only points out that it is "confusing" when compared to different definitions.
-
- The semantics of the term ‘Socialism’ or ‘State’ can get confusing or mistranslated, as there are different definitions and different versions of the system. There is no one universal definition that can explain it. -Pro
- The Abolition of Debate
- If Pro is right about Socialism falling under no one definition, then our debate should be over with, as we cannot debate a thing which is undefined. This also invalidates Pro's later claim that Socialism is cooperation, given in his words, "There is no one universal definition that can explain it." The unfortunate result of saying that there is no definition that can explain Socialism is that you end the ability to debate it outright.”
In acknowledging this, it is more to point out the absurdity of relying on dictionary definitions to conclude absolutes.:
“The fallacy of democracy
We must ask ourselves what “the people” means when speaking of state action. Democracy is an illusion because it assumes that everyone will agree on any one thing when we all well know that people disagree on pretty much everything. The best thing a democracy could hope for is majority rule, but even this is farcical in practice. Given a majority democracy, the question of enforcement on the minority becomes the issue. The sensible thing to do is to create law enforcers (sort of like our police) to force the noncompliant to follow the mandates of the majority. Such a body of law enforcers will have to be massive and capable of handling just under half of the population. This “executive” or enforcing body will have serious power. Unfortunately we must consider the free will of these enforcers. In the most severe of scenarios they can rebel and join the minority to overrule the majority with ease, but even in small matters such a body may disagree with the majority and cherry pick or refuse to enforce their laws. They may even choose to enforce their own unofficial mandates. What we have inevitable created with these enforcers, is a ruling class or hierarchy with real deciding power over the rest of the "democratic" society, a government if you will. Thus we, though not intending it, have witnessed the destruction of democracy by its own hand.”
- There are a variety of versions of Socialism that each have different ways of implementing said strategies.
- Many dictionaries will also phrase definitions in multiple ways and it is oftentimes in the wording of definition that the term ‘Socialism’ in particular will get confusing. The fault therein lies with the technicalities of semantics and the differing structures of Socialism. It is therefore impossible to argue against Socialism when you are only using a singular definition to support your point without considering the diversity of all systems.
Here is a direct quote.:
- “The term socialism was coined in the 1830s and it was first used to refer to philosophical or moral beliefs rather than any specific political views. Alexandre Vinet, who claimed to have been the first person to use the term, defined socialism simply as "the opposite of individualism".[28] Robert Owen also viewed socialism as a matter of ethics, although he used it with a slightly more specific meaning to refer to the view that human society can and should be improved for the benefit of all. In a similar vein, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon claimed that socialism is "every aspiration towards the amelioration of society".[29]”
Source: Types of socialism - Wikipedia
Your claim of the state-controlled version being the universal definition is also contradicted, if we are talking about Marxism:
- “Marxism, or Marxist communism, refers to classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production and to a variety of movements acting in the name of this goal which are influenced by the thought of Karl Marx. In general, the classless forms of social organisation are not capitalised while movements associated with official communist parties and communist states usually are. In the classic Marxist definition (pure communism), a communist economy refers to a system that has achieved a superabundance of goods and services due to an increase in technological capability and advances in the productive forces and therefore has transcended socialism such as a post-scarcity economy. This is a hypothetical stage of social and economic development with few speculative details known about it.”
But moving on from that, you talked in length about what you referred to as the “evils of socialism,” so I shall instead focus on the evils of capitalism and explain why socialism is good.
- “Socialism reduces violent crime?
- Pro argues later that Socialism offers the benefit of reducing violent crime:
- A lot of violent crime is perpetrated by existing factors such as poverty and being born into a lower class. Neither of the latter two would exist in a socialist nation, so the rates of robberies, thefts, and mob violence would decrease dramatically. -Pro
- I agree that poverty is a breeding ground for crime, however, Pro makes a couple of assumptions from this.
-
- Assumption 1: Socialism reduces poverty? While I will tend to agree Socialism brings most people to equal levels, aside from rich governors, I would only clarify that it makes those people equally poor. Pro needs to show how Socialism raises the wealth of society rather than its taking from it and making an equal class of poor people.
- Assumption 2: Poverty is the Main Cause of Crime? In the second sentence Pro claims that if Socialism eliminates this poverty, then the problems of violent crime would dramatically fall. This also needs explanation because, as Pro mentions, poverty is only one of many factors that induce crime.
-
- Impact: Socialism is a Dog without Teeth
- Pro claims that Socialism will solve poverty and crime, but offers little to support this.
- The real issue of Socialism is that it kills the life of the individual citizen, which, being the building block of society, would in turn kill the society.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
This quote sums up the Capitalist philosophy. Not necessarily born out of sadism, but bred from an attitude of contempt and indifference.
As early as the 19th century, families that were poor struggled to find work and a lot of times separated to go to prison or labor work camps. Children were recruited to work, as young as ten. They often succumbed to injuries with no access to adequate healthcare and were subject to termination if they complained. The stressful environment also aged them prematurely, likely contributing to a shortened life as a result.
Times haven’t changed all that much either. The higher classes of society are able to afford an education at a sufficient price, and education has now been the priority to being able to get a high-paying job. Meanwhile, the lower classes of society cannot afford these educations, the very thing needed to be able to help them support their family, so they resort to taking minimum-wage jobs just to feed their families.
And when these jobs prove to be unable to feed their families, this leads them down a career of dealing drugs. Robberies, extortion, vandalisms. Capitalists assume that the solution is to therefore double down on police enforcing the law which only leads to the state violence you mentioned earlier. However, this is a very ineffective strategy as it is entirely reactive.
(A lot of people who deal drugs were forced into that life by friends or family, they didn’t choose the life willingly. So when they are imprisoned and get out years later, they are unable to find work. Where does this lead them back to?)
If Capitalists want to reduce the crime on both sides, would it then stand to reason to use a proactive strategy instead of a reactive one?
The reason socialism is good for these issues is because it would lead to a more satisfied civilian life that would contribute to less crime. Less crime would then lead to easier lives for police officers, as they have less to worry about overall. Families are therefore healthier as a result and children will not succumb to the health issues of a destructive society.
Food for thought.
Round 3
Con
#5
40 years ago, a man from the Soviet Union walks into a local shop. He asks the clerk, “You don’t have any meat?” The clerk says, “No, here we don’t have any fish. The shop that doesn’t have any meat is across the street.”
Example 2: Crimes of the Soviet Union
In strikingly similar fashion to National Socialism was the rise of the Soviet Union and its grip on Russian life.
Soviet Control of the Means of Production
The Soviet Union, similar to Germany, advocated for state control of the means of production.
“as Marxists, the Bolsheviks believed that private ownership of the means of production provided the basis of political power. By nationalizing it, they undermined the opposition. They further acted in the conviction that a centralized and planned economy was inherently more efficient than a capitalist one and would in no time turn Soviet Russia into the most productive country in the world.” (1)
The free market in Soviet Russia was soon abolished:
“In the first year of the new regime all but the smallest industrial enterprises were nationalized. Agricultural land,the main source of national wealth, was for the time being left at the disposal of peasant communes, with the understanding that sooner or later it would be collectivized. Private ownership of urban real estate was abolished, as was inheritance. The state (that is, in effect, the Bolshevik Party) became the sole owner of the country’s productive and income-yielding assets.” (1)
Consequences of Soviet Socialism
1. Destruction of the Economy
“Money was effectively destroyed by the unrestrained printing of banknotes, which led, as intended, to an extraordinary inflation: by January 1923 prices in Soviet Russia, compared to 1913, had increased 100 million times. Ordinary citizens, along with the rich, lost their life savings.” (1)
2. Slavery of the state
“Barter and the issuance by government agencies of free goods replaced normal commercial operations. Private trade, whether wholesale or retail, was forbidden. All adult citizens were required to work wherever ordered. The independence of trade unions was abolished and the right to strike against the nationalized enterprises outlawed.” (1)
3. Genocide and Death
As part of the Soviet program, “enemies of the state” were starved and rounded up and killed in the millions.
“presents the overall democide and totals of those killed in terror, deportations, camps and transit, and democidal famine for the eight periods of Soviet history, 1917-1987 (lines 18 to 23 in the table). From 28,326,000 to 126,891,000 people were killed during these years; a prudent estimate is 61,911,000 dead. Of these, 54,767,000 were Soviet citizens” (2)
Ugly Pattern of State Control
Whether it be National Socialism or the Soviet Union, the disturbing pattern of large evils follow state control of the means of production.
Rebuttals:
Socialism is Free Cooperation?
"Unfortunately, Capitalism only serves to benefit the higher classes of society. Specifically, the wealthy elite. What this statement would have you believe is that Capitalism and Socialism share the same goal, the only contrast being the tactical difference for achieving it." -Pro
While I do not defend Capitalism explicitly in this debate, I will humor this point. The problem here is "free cooperation" is a central tenet of a Free Market and in Capitalism. You cannot achieve "free" cooperation any way other than allowing freedom of choice. Either you agree to this central tenant and the Free Market as the result, or you must postulate Socialism's interference in this freedom of cooperation.
Pro does even allude that lack of state control is the problem at hand:
Consequently, the lack of state interference is what enables this abusive, neglectful treatment of the poor by the rich and wealthy. -Pro
Definition of Socialism
In response to my pointing out the importance of a single definition to debate and the common modern use of the word, Pro explains that there have been different uses of the word in the past. I appreciate Pro highlighting Socialism's history. I would only add that the modern use of the word remains the same despite its past uses.
The Abolition of Debate
As a result of Pro's unclear use of Socialism, I pointed out the impossibility of debating vague definitions to which Pro responds:
In acknowledging this, it is more to point out the absurdity of relying on dictionary definitions to conclude absolutes.: -Pro
While I agree with Pro that words are not absolute, he missed my point that words contain distinct meaning and that each common definition clearly shared the same meaning of state control of the means of production. Therefore the common understanding of Socialism remains government control of the economy. If Pro wishes to contest this meaning, he needs to counter with another with reasons to prefer, otherwise this definition must remain.
Pro also mentions Marxism, that it is classless and stateless:
Marxism, or Marxist communism, refers to classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production and to a variety of movements acting in the name of this goal which are influenced by the thought of Karl Marx. -Pro
Since we are not debating Marxism, I do not see its relevance to the Socialism debate.
The Evils of Capitalism
Pro finishes round 2 with critiques of Capitalism.
Unfortunately, Capitalism only serves to benefit the higher classes of society. Specifically, the wealthy elite. What this statement would have you believe is that Capitalism and Socialism share the same goal, the only contrast being the tactical difference for achieving it. -Pro
While I do not defend "Capitalism" in this debate, for what it's worth, the evils of Socialist states far outweigh the imperfections Pro mentions in freer societies. People are imperfect and selfish in any system of governance, the difference being that in Socialism these selfish people have far more power and resources than the individual citizen. The abolition of human rights and the tens of millions killed by socialist states soak the once pure intention in guilty blood.
Socialism Gives the Rich Unlimited Power
Pro makes the case that the goal of Socialism is to stop the Rich from hurting the poor.
Consequently, the lack of state interference is what enables this abusive, neglectful treatment of the poor by the rich and wealthy. -Pro
For the sake of the argument, I will assume that all wealthy people are evil and selfish, Pro offers government coercion as the solution. This argument makes the fatal assumption that the rich will not seek influence and benefits from the state. This, however, contradicts our assumption of the rich's evil intent. Far from keeping the rich in check, Socialism offers the rich their greatest weapon against the poor yet: The State. The wealthy of society will continue influencing the poor, but this time as special interests in government, utilizing the resources of the whole state.
Sources:
Pro
#6
While Socialism’s dark history cannot be ignored. What if there were ways in which it benefited mankind? Would you be willing to consider Socialism if I showed you proof that it works? At the end, I shall do exactly that.
But first, allow me to thoroughly deconstruct the other arguments made by Con.:
- “While I do not defend "Capitalism" in this debate, for what it's worth, the evils of Socialist states far outweigh the imperfections Pro mentions in freer societies. People are imperfect and selfish in any system of governance, the difference being that in Socialism these selfish people have far more power and resources than the individual citizen. The abolition of human rights and the tens of millions killed by socialist states soak the once pure intention in guilty blood.”
To which I point out the following.:
If Capitalism and Socialism were two mass murderers being sentenced, Capitalism makes the latter look like The Easter Bunny by comparison.
The Historical Crimes of Capitalism:
- The Slave Trade
- Colonialism
After Christopher Columbus’s arrival to America, the overall deaths of the population through brutal force is unknown, but was speculated to be in the millions. With the survivors being sold into slavery.
While these crimes are historical, let’s take a look at the more recent crimes of Capitalism.:
How many people die every year because they don’t have clean water?
How many die every year from starvation?
What about vaccine-preventable diseases?
Or malaria?
One of the world’s largest production companies for water bottles would deliberately take all the clean water from different places, depriving people of their most basic need for survival and selling it back to them. This is obviously a problem for people who can’t afford it. Children from a Pakistani community who were getting sick from being forced to resort to drinking dirty water.
This same company also sourced its chocolate supply from cocoa plantations found guilty of trafficking children and forcing them to work within their pre-adolescent years. While the company wasn’t found legally responsible for these degeneracies, it failed in doing a check on where the supply was coming from and funded these companies.
The lesser crimes of this company are infecting people with E. Coli and causing harm to the environment.
This company is Nestle.
I point this out to show that these sins against humanity are the most obvious need for Socialism. Con believes state interference is bad which then begs the question, what other crimes will companies like this commit in the future without accountability?
Con mentions he shall not forfeit his use of the definition for Socialism and does not see the relevance of Marxism in this conversation,
- “While I agree with Pro that words are not absolute, he missed my point that words contain distinct meaning and that each common definition clearly shared the same meaning of state control of the means of production. Therefore the common understanding of Socialism remains government control of the economy. If Pro wishes to contest this meaning, he needs to counter with another with reasons to prefer, otherwise this definition must remain.”
- “Since we are not debating Marxism, I do not see its relevance to the Socialism debate.”
To which I shall offer my following reply as the rebuttal.:
I do not necessarily object to the definition which you gave, but it is my impression that in order to oppose Socialism, you must assess it as a whole. Marxism is an extension of Socialism and thus very relevant to the discussion. I use this example because it perfectly illustrates my point that there are different types of Socialism.
My next question is, would you oppose a form of Socialism that was stateless?
Here is the final statement made by Con which I shall address before I prove that Socialism can and does benefit mankind.
- “Socialism Gives the Rich Unlimited Power
- Pro makes the case that the goal of Socialism is to stop the Rich from hurting the poor.
- Consequently, the lack of state interference is what enables this abusive, neglectful treatment of the poor by the rich and wealthy. -Pro
- For the sake of the argument, I will assume that all wealthy people are evil and selfish, Pro offers government coercion as the solution. This argument makes the fatal assumption that the rich will not seek influence and benefits from the state. This, however, contradicts our assumption of the rich's evil intent. Far from keeping the rich in check, Socialism offers the rich their greatest weapon against the poor yet: The State. The wealthy of society will continue influencing the poor, but this time as special interests in government, utilizing the resources of the whole state.”
While there are exceptions, there is very little evidence to support this assertion. On the contrary, taxing wealthy people that benefit to exploit the lower classes is one of the ways to keep them in check. Socialism would drastically limit the number of freeloaders that abuse their privilege. As a result, you have a more functional society, and the lives of citizens are made easier.
As the final part of my argument, I present to you concrete evidence that Socialism benefits mankind. Here are 15 countries that have thrived off of Socialism.:
This list demonstrates firsthand what Peak Socialism is capable of and the true potential we only have yet to tap into.
Round 4
Con
#7
To quickly touch on my two contentions in this debate.
Contention 1 Socialism is anti-social
Impacts:
1. The power of the State is the governing body. T
2. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
3. The people are not the government.
It seems that Pro has not directly refuted this line of reasoning. Though we agree more or less with the governing aspect of Socialism, it is crucial to remember that Socialism requires a governing body separated from the rest of society.
Contention 2 Socialism’s defining ethic is compulsion.
Impacts:
1. The Abolition of Man
2. The Horrors of Socialism
It seems that this point remains uncontested. Pro responds to the Horrors of Socialism with his own harms of Capitalism, I will touch those in my rebuttals, but I want to point out that the Abolition of Man remains to be debated.
The Abolition of Man
I bring this point up because, in weighing the arguments at the end, I want to show that Socialism as a doctrine ultimately erodes the individual, the most important piece of society.
Weighing Mechanism: Individual vs Collective
In the weighing of Socialism, we need to keep in mind the warring ideals at play. I defend an emphasis of individual liberty in society. I think that the individual knows best on how to live his own life, control his means of producing value, and I do not need state interference to control these basic aspects of our lives. As I pointed out earlier, Socialism abolishes individual control, instead giving the state nanny control over the individual's life. Because the individual is the most important aspect of civilization, it must be upheld as the highest value in this debate. Socialism is the empowerment of collective control in the state and should be outweighed by the individual.
Rebuttals:
Definition of Socialism
In the last round Pro claims he doesn't necessarily object to the definition of Socialism, but asks the question:
"would you oppose a form of Socialism that was stateless?" -Pro
1. Yes, because the definition requires state ownership of the means of production, I must only point out that a "stateless" Socialism by definition is oxymoronic.
2. Similarly, I must ask Pro what he means by "stateless", and, assuming he means a fully democratic system, whether he thinks there is such a thing as stateless control of the means of production and how such a democratic system could exist (Looking back at the fallacy of democracy in round 1).
Pro also pushes for Marxism's use in the debate, claiming that it is an extension of Socialism. The problem is that his definition of Marxism is that of a stateless system, while the definition of Socialism includes the state.
The Fallacy of Democracy
Referring back to round 1, it is important to recognize the impossibility of a true democracy and the necessary existence of government in any society. We need to focus this debate on the types of governance, whether it be limited Free Market or expanded Socialism.
Socialism Gives the Rich Unlimited Power
In response to my point that the rich use Socialism for their ends, Pro responds with the following:
1. While there are exceptions, there is very little evidence to support this assertion.2. On the contrary, taxing wealthy people that benefit to exploit the lower classes is one of the ways to keep them in check. -Pro
While Pro has dropped my analysis on how the evil rich utilize government, I must only point out how all governments, including socialist governments, have given special favors to those in power. Examples? Take large companies in all countries (massive lobbying campaigns and numerous scandals involving politicians and special interests) and large companies headed by rich oligarchs in National Socialist German and Soviet Russia. This is not a very contentious point, as most people understand that the rich love taking advantage of government, especially when the state yields great power such as in Socialism.
Crimes of Capitalism
In the last round Pro brought several harms he claimed were caused by capitalism. I have a couple of thoughts:
1. Quantify Harms. I only ask Pro to quantify and link the harms caused by the doctrine of the Free Market. Many of his own harms I would claim were caused by Socialist thinking instead. Further, it is very important that Pro quantify in numbers the evils so we can compare.
The Slave Mindset of Socialism
Pro brings several examples of evil done in freer societies. The two that stuck out to me were the slave trade and colonialism. Both placed the state in charge of the means of production by method of state mandated slavery and colonies. Both were eliminated across the world by amending government control in these areas, stopping government endorsement and protection of slavery and slave owners, and giving individual rights back to the slaves and colonized people. Both of these great evils turn out to be a fault of too much government control rather than its opposite and so Socialism is at fault.
But even if it was not, there are still two mass murders at large.
The Greatest Evils Require the Greatest Power
Murder and crime has been committed in all types of societies, people are flawed and evil. But when it comes to the individual in a free society, one such murder cannot continue in his sin, for he is held accountable by society, his fellow man, but for the socialist state, what is to hold it accountable when society must obey it?
This is why we see the greatest evils committed by governments. They are the enforcers of society, accountable only to themselves. Hitler and Stalin, the most evil men responsible for the most death and destruction in human history, would not have gone far without the power of the socialist German and Russian governments. That is why Socialism is wrong, it gives these evil people the greatest power to destroy.
To Truth!
-logicae
Pro
#8
I saved this point specifically for this round.
The fear of socialism has always stemmed from the historical connection to Hitler and Stalin.
President Roosevelt understood this fear, so he adamantly avoided the label ‘Socialist’ at any cost while enacting policies that were traditionally Socialist.
But this fear is mostly rooted in conspiracy. Con argues that Socialism is the root of their evil, what gave them their power.
On the contrary, I would instead point out that Socialism wasn’t necessary for their ascent to power. As I stated earlier.:
“Hitler was a megalomaniac parasite pandering to whatever trend was popular at the time.”
The same can also be said then for Joseph Stalin. But as we all know, Correlation Is Not Causation.
And their notorious ally, Benito Mussolini, was EXPELLED from the Socialist Party for his support of intervention, so he turned to fascism. Socialism cannot be used here.
Nor can it be used with another tyrant such as Hideki Tojo.
So to wrap up my final argument, I repeat the following.
1. Socialism is the antithesis to Social Darwinism.
The poor are rarely ever considered when holding wealth criminals responsible for their crimes. In the harmful circle of Capitalism, it is the poor individual who shall continue to be exploited for his hard labor and low pay.
To ensure that certain requirements for survival are being met, it therefore makes sense to engage the statewide cooperation so that we can uphold equality.
Round 5
Con
#9
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. – Alexis de Tocqueville
Voting issue 1: The Individual
a. The individual is the highest value. As I have pointed out, the individual is the building block of society and therefore is crucial to its make up. What harms the individual, harms the rest of society.
b. Liberty protects the individual. It follows then that liberty allows the individual to exist and so should be respected above any other value of society.
c. Socialism destroys individual liberty. During this debate I have pointed out numerous times that Socialism, by controlling the means of production, severely limits the liberty of the individual, thus failing to uphold this highest value.
Voting issue 2: Crimes of Socialism
a. Abolition of Man
Throughout this debate I have maintained that Socialism attacks human nature, namely the strict ability for people to make and control their own environment. Socialism's primary ethic is compulsion, control of the individual. This point has made it through this debate unrefuted, but remains a massive scar on the face of Socialism.
b. Slavery, Debt, and Death
In this debate I gave two clear examples of Socialism in practice with the socialist states of National Socialist Germany and Soviet Russia. Both gained control of the means of production, as is the definition of Socialism, and restricted individual rights in the process. This destruction of the individual resulted in tens of millions of deaths, which far surpasses the evils of any other free governments to date.
Once more, the Fruit is Socialism
In the last round Pro makes another appeal to the bombastic nature of the names of Hitler and Stalin. I already agreed that Hitler changed his stance for power and I would also agree the same with Stalin. Because Pro missed my earlier response that we should be talking about the policies of the regimes and not the politicians, he fails to respond to my arguments devoted to the fruit of both socialist countries. The harms still remain.
Special thanks for Sir.Lancelot for the debate!
To Truth!
-logicae
Pro
#10
“Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is terrorism of the rich.” -Peter Ustinov
All the examples Con made against Socialism are historical whereas all my points have used previous and more current ones to support my point.
So in concluding my final thoughts, here are the arguments I make in favor of socialism.
- Socialism is cooperation.
I explained that the birth of Socialism was invented to combat the outdated theory “Social Darwinism.” In a society of Survival of The Fittest, Socialism is an upgrade because cooperation is crucial to long-term survival and progress.
2. Hitler wasn’t a Socialist.
The point here is to elaborate that as a leader rising to power, Hitler was consistently inconsistent. The criticisms of Socialist policies were therefore the result of a deliberate misuse of power, as opposed to the shortcomings of Socialism.
3. There are different forms of Socialism.
It is fairly easy to cite a few examples of how Socialism failed as a way to prove that Socialism, as a system doesn’t work rather than considering Socialism is still fairly new, and that different structures of the system work better than others.
4. Socialism reduces crime.
A lot of crimes such as robberies, burglaries, muggings, and drug dealing are generally bred from factors that make it impossible to make enough to survive, forcing people into lifestyles they wouldn’t voluntarily choose if they didn’t have to.
5. The sins of Capitalism far outweigh the failures of Socialism.
In this example, I gave historical and modern examples of how Capitalism has and continues to exploit people in order for a certain class to profit. In societies prioritizing individualism over cooperation, rich employers are free to withhold pay and give the bare minimum to workers, depriving them of basic human needs.
6. Socialism stops greed and tyranny.
Entrepreneurs would be required to compensate workers for the labor they do and would therefore be unable to use their authority for self-serving motives. In Capitalist societies, wealthy people are able to buy their way out of crimes while the poor are sentenced for crimes they did not commit and are unable to afford adequate legal defense. Socialism would ultimately guarantee that everyone is represented fairly and partially.
If the arguments were not convincing enough on their own, I provided a link for reference, demonstrating a list of 15 countries that proves that Socialism works. This point went unaddressed by Con.
In conclusion, the previous arguments made against Socialism are more reflective of societal biases people have which disregard objectivity in favor of irrational fears. So I maintain the overall position that Socialism Is Good.
- Very fascinating subject and thanks for the stimulating discussion, logicae!
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
@Sir.Lancelot
I think part of the problem is that issues and ideologies are vague, variable, and numerous in general,
Though people have aspects of issues, certain examples in mind,
When they say one is good or bad, wanted or unwanted.
I think it's also a problem when something specific and small is argued,
Such as Individual vs Collective,
I think that these small specific parts, again, easily find their ways into many definitions, issues, sides,
Even opposing issues, ideologies, sides.
@NoOneInParticular
I think,
You can't really have individual or state rights,
Unless there are mechanisms in place to place that.
I think that powerful nations 'require,
Some giving of 'some individual liberties, . . . Maybe.
Though which one's we ought keep, which give away, varies.
And some I 'greatly prefer to keep.
And maybe a strong nation needs some individual liberties,
Eh.
I think that force and coercion can find various ways and methods,
It can be the state, it can be a company, it can be a group or an individual.
No worries.
It was my first debate on the website, so I should have asked the other person to specify the topic more clearly.
Sorry I don't have enough of a takeaway, for a vote,
Might just be me though, rather than the debate.
My take is, definitions used by both were confused and broad,
As well as too much responsibility to said definitions given to historical actions, by both debaters.
Hey Rational Madman,
To put it simply, I was arguing that taking the means of production by government, Socialism, is a worse form of governance than leaving the means of production to the individual and Sir Lancelot was arguing the opposite. I had two lines of argumentation to this end (It harms the most important value of the Individual and, as a result, it has caused great evils that would not have been possible without its implementation).
The debate is quite lengthy, so it may take a good 30min to read, but we go over these points in detail.
To Truth!
-logicae
Logicae’s position: Socialism is evil.
Mine: Socialism is good for mankind.
Capitalism wasn’t really the focus here, as I’m the one who draws the comparison first to illustrate there are worse evils than the misdeeds invoked in the name of Socialism.
My quote: “It is this abusive treatment of the poor by the rich and wealthy that proves the need for socialism.”
But despite me referencing it several times, it isn’t very relevant to the debate.
Logicae: “While I do not defend capitalism explicitly in this debate, I will entertain this point.”
Logicae's quote on Socialism being anti-social.:
"Contention 1 Socialism is anti-social
The use of the word “social” in Socialism is disingenuous because it aims to sneak in the preconceived notion that we are all involved and have a say in its construction and implementation. But Socialism, despite euphemism in name, is far from social."
My response:
"Social Darwinism was a sociological theory that embraced the idea of “Survival of The Fittest” in society, allowing only wealthy people to triumph while completely disregarding those at the bottom of the hierarchy. This theory was used to enable rich industrialists taking advantage of poor people and even justify racism.
Socialism is the antithesis to Social Darwinism. Socialism is based on the idea that cooperation is more effective for long-term survival and balance than competition. In an ideal socialist world, everyone has value.
No more needs to be said."
In both of your opinions, what was this debate about?
Socialism is more X than Capitalism?
Socialism is X while Capitalism is Y?
Give me quotes from the debate supporting your idea of what the debate was. This isn't mandatory, it would just help me structure my vote. Currently, I cannot catch what you guys thought you were debating beyond some mention of a tyrant named Hitler.
Thank you and likewise!
This is a very fascinating thread.
Thank you very much for your great first speech!
To Truth!
-logicae
Socialism existing? That is an easy Pro win.
Socialism doing X better than Capitalism? First define the latter and explain how pure vs reformed both systems of comparison are and the measures of success being contrasted.
Hello RationalMadman,
The topic is Socialism, which, as I provided in the description, is the "Political and economic theory advocating state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange." Side Con (me) is against it and side Pro is for it. I also provided the weighing mechanism of Individual vs collective government to help judge each side.
I thought about limiting character size, but I would rather give each side as much room as possible to get their arguments through. Brevity is something I value, but I will let the other decide how he wishes to argue.
To Truth!
-logicae
10 x 30k chars means we are expecting voters to vote from a 300k char read and downwards.
Aside from reducing either Rounds or chars, I'd appreciate this to be a topic. Socialism is not a debate resolution or topic, it has zero context as in what is it we are arguing?